Boy, 8, Shoots Self With Uzi at Gun Show

I haven't posted in a while but felt a need to chime in on this one. It seems like every time something very unfortunate
or horrible happens at the end of a gun it brings alot of people that comment or start posts about removing the right to bear arms from Americans. I
will first say that I am a gun owner I own a 22 rifle, a SKS, a 20 gauge rifle, and a 12 gauge rifle (no hand guns). I am a firm believer in the
second amendment but often feel torn when it comes to handguns and sub machine guns. I have been robbed twice in my life at gunpoint both times were
cheap 9mm pistols.

I feel at a capacity to protect myself in my household with the rifles I have for hunting should anyone enter forcefully. That being said I do enjoy
going to the range and shooting a pistol and enjoy the sport of shooting one accurately. However, the things make me nervous to the point of not
having one in the house. I am single and live alone but if I had kids it would be twice as critical to me. The thing is that to point a long gun,
you point it by moving your torso or feet. To point a pistol or submachine gun move your wrist. If there is a round chambered you have the capacity
to shoot anyone within 160 -180 degrees. To see an example of this put a laser sight on a handgun and move your wrist back and forth. Put a laser
sight on a rifle and watch how much slower and the amount of effort it takes to make that red dot cover the same area.

If I leave my house with any one of my guns it is apparent I am leaving my house with a gun for anyone to see. I don't get nervous knowing people
that live around me have rifles, this even goes for "assault rifles". When they have it out or leave the house with it you know. Basically what I
am saying here with the exception of postal worker bob stepping out his door with a AR-15 with loaded magazine in and 5 more strapped to his belt
assault rifles don't make me nervous.

I take comfort in knowing that if turds hit the fan, there are people like me with rifles capable of defending Americans against enemies at home, even
if that enemy was our own government. But pistols and sub machine guns as fun as they are to shoot with few exceptions will not do a damn thing when
it comes to stopping people raiding your house with body armor. Might they stop a thief trying to rob you? Yes. Might the thief that is trying rob
you have a handgun, yes. For every story of someone who successfully stopped a robber with a handgun there is another for a kid that shot his freind.
Or a handgun stolen from a law abiding citizen used to kill someone.

Take every story you have heard in the past ten years about a rifle being used in a malicious way or even hunting accidents. I can assure you it
won't be a drop in the bucket compared to all the handgun related deaths or sub machine in this case. This is one of the main beefs I have with the
NRA, the national RIFLE association

As against the general public having handguns, sub machine guns as I am I know that making them illegal will only keep them in the hands of criminals.
Every law passed to prevent people that should not have a handgun from getting one has only effected the people that should not have a problem
getting one. NOTHING has stopped lucrative sellers from placing handguns in the hands of criminals. Nothing has stopped stolen guns from circulating
unabated amongst criminals. And last but not least common sense did not stop the uzi from finding a way into this 8 year old's hands.

It's a fine line but making guns illegal in not the answer. I do however believe that we can do a lot better at keeping handguns and sub machine
guns (easily concealed firearms) out of the hands of people that should not have them.

As for the father, I don't think there is a punishment in the world that will ever amount to losing a son. That will punish him for the rest of his
life. Sad story.

This is tragic and I feel for the family but it shouldn't be used by pro-gun banners as evidence that guns should be banned. The boy shouldn't have
been anywhere near a gun in the first place.
Ask yourself why stories like this are promoted, aside from the natural morbid, hysterical bent of the mainstream news.

Note the use of the word "controlled". I have not said they should be banned.

As an outsider (to the US) the gun-control debate looks the same as the abortion debate. It no longer matters what someone means, it matters what you
can say they mean(t).

So gun "control" is painted as meaning "banning guns".

I don't think they should be banned. But they should be seriously controlled. Far more so than they are now. Because, if the OP's analysis is
correct, everything that led to this kid's death was done LEGALLY. Now, I know you can't legislate common sense, but you can legislate common
actions, like seatbelts, helmets etc. These things have been proven to save lives and are, as a result, legal requirements in many nations. For a
similar reason access to guns in many countries is heavily restricted. Because they TAKE lives.

For the nth time, I'm an Aussie who has used a number of deadly weapons, legally. Including an F89 Austeyr. And I'm not in the military. But anyone
who allowed an 8-year old to fire a full-auto Uzi pistol would be charged with a crime. Whether or not that child was injured or killed.

I fully agree with your take on the NRA and its raison d'etre. I would choose to be a member of such an organisation if its remit accurately
reflected its name (and just because a Glock has a grooved barrel does not make it a "rifle").

To prove I am a sea of contradictions, I believe all children, while teenagers, should be taught to fire a bolt- or lever-action .22 rifle. The poster
who described his experience at "camp" (what an Americanism!) pretty much described it perfectly.

To put this in perspective for all those who have said something along the lines of "it's a tragedy, but it children should learn how to use
firearms correctly", would you agree with a child, in this case an eight year old, doing all of the following.

1. Drive a car.
2. Use a power drill
3. Use a blow torch
4. Parachute jumping
5. Work on live electrical equipment, e.g. power lines

If the answer to any of these is no, then why should a child be allowed to handle a firearm, a very powerful tool, the only purpose of which is to
maim or kill.

Why this idea that children should learn how to use firearms, when almost no one would be offended by their, or others children having to wait until
their teens to drive a car.

IMO, children only need to be firmly and repeatedly told that guns are potentially lethal. Thats it. What on earth possesses any parent to let their
child hold an Uzi for gods sake?

I'm coming from a UK perspective here and while I grew up in a rifle-owning household and believe that the UK's gun laws are far too strict. the USA
does need to tighten up in some areas.

Am I correct in thinking that a parent couldn't take an 8 yo into a pub/bar? Or that an 8 yo is not allowed to drive? Why does the law permit 8yo
to be admitted to a gun show..and even more mindboggling..allowed to handle a dangerous and loaded weapon? I really think that this state needs to
seperate kids and guns.

Guns don't kill? Well not when they're out of human hands surrounded by concrete. Otherwise isn't that what a Uzi is designed to do? God, a
child has lost his life because his Dad thought he should fire a Uzi...for what? When would an 8yo ever ever have need to use such a thing? There is
no justification for allowing U18s/U21s access to firearms.

This will unfortunately be more evidence for those who wish to ban all guns for adults. Make some sensible compromises.

Originally posted by shizzle5150
The thing is that to point a long gun, you point it by moving your torso or feet. To point a pistol or submachine gun move your wrist. If there is
a round chambered you have the capacity to shoot anyone within 160 -180 degrees. To see an example of this put a laser sight on a handgun and move
your wrist back and forth.

Oh dear lord.

My friend I offer this advice in good spirit. Please take some rudimentary pistol shooting lessons!

To properly shoot a pistol requires your body to be braced and entirely in line with the pistol. You cannot simply bend your wrist and shoot... the
recoil would shear your wrist sideways, making the weapon uncontrollable.

Again, please dont go around shooting handguns with a bent wrist... your wrist should be in a perfectly straight line with your forearm.

Originally posted by ICTguy
That is a tragic story and an accident that need not have happened.

IMO, children only need to be firmly and repeatedly told that guns are potentially lethal. Thats it. What on earth possesses any parent to let their
child hold an Uzi for gods sake?

I'm coming from a UK perspective here and while I grew up in a rifle-owning household and believe that the UK's gun laws are far too strict. the USA
does need to tighten up in some areas.

Am I correct in thinking that a parent couldn't take an 8 yo into a pub/bar? Or that an 8 yo is not allowed to drive? Why does the law permit 8yo
to be admitted to a gun show..and even more mindboggling..allowed to handle a dangerous and loaded weapon? I really think that this state needs to
seperate kids and guns.

While I don't think children that young (because of their size) should be using calibers larger/higher powered than .22 or .223, what is bad about
teaching children to shoot? I do agree however that its a bad idea to give a kid that small a fully automatic weapon without showing them how to
control the recoil. They do tend to be beasts in terms of recoil and you have to control the weapon, rather than letting it control you.

Its a sad accident, but its no different than an 8yearold who was allowed to ride one of those mini motorcycles that have been around for a while, and
the kid died in an accident because he couldn't control it.

Learning to shoot and respect firearms at a young age is a wonderful thing though. If only it was still like it was a hundred years ago, where it was
illegal NOT to know how to shoot or at least have a rifle.

What's with the "Errrrrrrrrr" ?
True, they are dangerous, but... They account for less than 2 per cent of all accidental deaths. My point was that the media are pushing an agenda.
The NWO want a disarmed America.
Also, have a look at the history of gun control
Nazi Germany banned guns in 1938- hmmmmmmmmm. Then went right into the ghettos.
Communist China. Slow incremental control finishing in 1949. Millions of dissidents purged.
Agreed, guns are dangerous, but we are facing a far bigger threat. Also look at the crime stats for NYC and D.C. Massive gun control and high crime.
Switzerland, gun ownership an obligation and very little crime.
Zoom out and look at cyclical history.

Originally posted by shizzle5150Or a handgun stolen from a law abiding citizen used to kill someone.

As against the general public having handguns, sub machine guns as I am I know that making them illegal will only keep them in the hands of
criminals.

Actually criminals do not depend on “stolen” weapons. Many just get a straw purchaser with a clean record to buy one. Now those weapons get
circulated, sold, pawned, etc… Not sure exactly how to stop that, but I am sure there are ways.

I think you are being insensitive towards those of us that want guns for personal protection. A rifle is so not realistic in too many ways. Obviously
it is not suitable for conceiled carry, and on top of that it is not recommended as the weapon of choice for women even in the home.

Just because you had a bad experience being robbed it does NOT mean you should advocate that the rest of us lose our right to handguns. Maybe we
should focus on locking up the criminals instead of stripping citizens of their rights huh? I would be the punks that robbed you had a prior history,
and they will probably be caught and released to rob someone else.

THAT is the problem.The Hudson family murders were committed with a shotgun. Should we ban all shotguns? Oh and the prime suspect has a convicted
felon that was on parole, and broke that parole but was allowed to STAY on the streets and murder that family.

Truly an amazingly short sighted and foolish argument. By this logic, automobiles should be banned because there are those that operate them when
uneducated or impaired and cause death or injury.

Your post demonstrates a basic and common ignorance by not understanding that we will always hear more about cases where judgment lapsed or was not
present than we will about the multitude of careful and conscientious gun owners engaged in their legal rights.

It is a foolish person and a failing nation that removes rights from others without consideration of individual capability or long term
consequence.

The vision of the world you describe, one where neighbors limit the rights of one another out of unplaced concern and irrational fear, is not one that
I care to live in.

All death is tragic, death of children is devastating to a family and even a community. That is understood and agreed. However, the unequal measure
that we apply to death through careless use of firearms is the product of irrational fears created by a socialist mindset. A mindset that inculcates
believers into fearing the potential misuse of a valuable tool more than the well demonstrated essential benefits.

Social justice is not achieved through limiting our ability to hurt ourselves or others, mankind is more flexible than that and will always find ways.
Many of us look forward to living in a world where individual and group protection is not needed. In the meantime, I carry my sword.

Regarding Switzerland, while that country does not have an army per se and does require national service...I understand that you can take your weapon
home but not the ammunition. That may go some way to explaining why they have low murder rates involving guns..altho illegal weapons no doubt exist
there too.

i dont know whether to laugh or cry at you "gun nuts" when will you realize that most violent crime boils down to idiots having access to
firearms,after living in a rough part of london most my life i can tell you that one of the main reasons crime is rising here is the fact that in the
last five years guns have become more easily accesible and it doesnt take a genius to work out what happens to the crime rate,its funny how the areas
where firearms are easily available are most likely to experiance crime.

I dont care what argument you have for firearms 2nd ammendment or not guns were designed solely to kill and this supposed uprising that you all moan
about if it does happen will happen regardless if redneck joe has a gun in his draw,the same argument might as well be true for nucleur weapons its
only there to protect you so why not, the fact of the matter is if there wasnt an uzi in the kids hand,ignorant gun culture in america,the 2nd
ammendment the kid would still be here today if you never had the relaxed attitude to guns then surely his father would of had the smarts to give his
8 year old a fully automatic weapon, man when i was a kid we would play with sticks and sling shots and if we had trouble to sort it would be with
fists

I've not fired one of these high-powered swiss-cheesers before, but I've fired other automatic weapons like the M-16 and a WWI M-1 rifle. I question
how the instructor told the boy to hold the weapon. Most kids, if you watch them, hold a fake or real gun with both hands on the grip and one or two
fingers on the trigger.

With an Uzi, I would think you really MUST keep one hand cupped around of the weapon's forward chassis when you fire to prevent the thing from
flailing around like a high powered water hose. Two hands on the handle with one of those things is just asking for disaster.

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.